Impractical techniques?

What do you consider an impractical technique and what makes that technique impractical.
I hear martial arts instructors talking about techniques that are impractical all the time but I wonder what makes a technique impractical because ultimately a techniques effectiveness comes
down to the person using it and I also understand that some techniques are harder to pull off in a real fighting situation but just because technique A is more difficult than technique B dose that mean that technique A should be considered useless. Share your thoughts

What do you consider an impractical technique and what makes that technique impractical.
I hear martial arts instructors talking about techniques that are impractical all the time but I wonder what makes a technique impractical because ultimately a techniques effectiveness comes
down to the person using it and I also understand that some techniques are harder to pull off in a real fighting situation but just because technique A is more difficult than technique B dose that mean that technique A should be considered useless. Share your thoughts

IMpractical techniques are techniques thet rely on unrealstic conditions innorder to achive the desireed result. An impractical technique can often be made into apractical one by changing the target of the strike the leverage used in the move ect. It would also depend on you're body type as well.

In kung fu If you are big boned or obeise then monkey and snake kung fu would not be easy for you to do properly. Tiger or a power style would be more practical.

If you're rolling wiht someone the size of batista and you're a smaller guy and you see an opening for an armbar and a choke, going for a choke would be more practical. So I'd agree, it depends on the sucess rate of whatever you're trying to accomplish and whether the move is based in reality.

A technique that, when under pressure, falls apart because the 'attacker' didn't move a certain way or moved another way.

The biggest failures that I've seen tend to be with multi-step escapes and defenses; something requires 2/3/4 or more movements to complete. Your attacker isn't just going to stand there and let you finish. They will move away or towards you with intent.

Even single-step stuff can fall apart if it is based on ... crap: mystical strikes, pressure points, etc...

A technique that, when under pressure, falls apart because the 'attacker' didn't move a certain way or moved another way.

The biggest failures that I've seen tend to be with multi-step escapes and defenses; something requires 2/3/4 or more movements to complete. Your attacker isn't just going to stand there and let you finish. They will move away or towards you with intent.

Even single-step stuff can fall apart if it is based on ... crap: mystical strikes, pressure points, etc...

Pressure testing shows effectiveness.

Very good points especially with the multi-step escapes part.

but pressure testing mainly depends on the user of the technique a technique can be very simple but a practitioner who does not do well under pressure can mess it up

but pressure testing mainly depends on the user of the technique a technique can be very simple but a practitioner who does not do well under pressure can mess it up

Of course if the person doesn't know what they are doing they won't execute it properly. So the baseline is that the person knows what they are doing and have practiced it enough to execute it under pressure.

There is no magical technique in which a person will execute it with 100% efficiency if they don't know what they are doing. That is why 1-day self-defense seminars, if done poorly, can lead to overconfidence and do more harm than good. Good seminars will give the attendees an idea of what to expect (you will freeze up!), give them the feeling of being attacked (adrenaline, fear, etc...), and, if they want, find *good* training somewhere.

but pressure testing mainly depends on the user of the technique a technique can be very simple but a practitioner who does not do well under pressure can mess it up

Not really... It's a statistical thing really. Sure ke?po works for chuck, but it still doesn't mean it's legit. It's not all down to the fighter. It's the statistics of the appliability of a move/style that matters more. If you have people jumping out of a car in an accident and about 10 out of 1000 people survive unscrached, does that make it a propper behaveure/technique?

In the end, what people seem to forget about MAs is that it's not as person specific as you think. All MAs have to deal with the same animal - 4 limbs, 1 head, 1 torso about 170 pounds. The limbs all work the same, the material is the same/flesh and bones/...

I think impractical techniques involve pseudoscience and gimmicks to make them "work." Back when I took the ke?po many of our complaint combos involved a "stunning blow" that would stun the opponent, during which we would finish them off. In hindsight (and from punching/getting punched in the face <-----mostly the latter) I realize it is not that easy to stun someone, and that complaint drills that rely on that will get you in trouble.